Interview (Part 6): Karen McDermott

My interview with the 2019 Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting winner.

Karen McDermott wrote the original screenplay “Lullabies of La Jaula” which won a 2019 Nicholl Fellowship in Screenwriting. Recently, I had the opportunity to chat with Karen about her background as a screenwriter, her award-winning script, the craft of screenwriting, and what winning the Nicholl has meant to her.

Today in Part 6, Karen answers some screenwriting craft questions and what it felt like to win the Nicholl.

Scott: What’s the status of the script?

Karen: Two producers are shopping it to potential directors now, so we’ll see…

Scott: Oh, good. Let’s talk about the Nicholl experience. What was that like?

Karen: Of course the whole thing is an honor. And, overwhelming — and being introduced by Eva Marie Saint was surreal. She was so sweet.

But honestly, the speech was terrifying. Renee [Pillai] (the other female Fellow) and I have become friends since this experience, and we have a plan we want to pitch to the Committee — to replace the speech‑giving requirement in the future.

Here’s our idea…You’re the first to hear it:

Instead of having writers give a speech, we propose a question‑and‑answer session. Have a member of the Nicholl Committee ask questions, so the Fellow isn’t up on the stage all alone. This would also help to keep the time under control and the subject matter on point. Sort of like the Miss America pageant. Or “Inside the Actor’s Studio.” [laughter]

I talk in front of people for a living, but I still dreaded that speech. And I kept thinking, “If it’s like this for me, what is it like for writers who don’t talk in front of people every day?”

Scott: Let’s jump into some craft questions and let’s start with a basic one: How do you come up with story ideas?

Karen: I usually start with theme. There’s something I want to say, and I use story and character to say it. I know; it’s sacrilegious. Most writers say they start with character. But for me, you can have the most fascinating person in the world, but I don’t want to watch unless he’s doing/facing something fascinating — and there’s something going on (thematically) underneath.

For me, theme is the playground. That’s where the fun is.

I wanted to show the effects of family separation, of putting kids in cages. But I also wanted the folktale of La Llorona running beneath. I don’t think I would have started writing if I wasn’t so interested in comparing Border Control to a Mexican ghost that steals children.

Scott: I’ve interviewed probably 200 writers, and I’ve read thousands of interviews with writers. It’s an obsession of mine to study the creative processes of screenwriters. Theme seems to be the one area that is the most nebulous. It’s not like people really have a specific sort of definition for it. For my students, I’d say theme equals meaning. You’ve got to really understand what the meaning of the story is, and you can have all this stuff happening, but if it doesn’t mean anything, what’s the point?

Karen: Yes. My favorite movie is Waking Ned Devine — if you know that movie…

Scott: Oh yeah, sure.

Karen: The Irish movie.

Scott: That’s your favorite movie?

Karen: One of my favorites, yeah. The Year of Living Dangerously might be a close second. (I know: there couldn’t be two more different movies…) What I love about Waking Ned Devine is that on the surface, it’s a story about a town where a man has won the lottery. He dies, and the town pretends he’s alive so they can claim his winnings.

One of the themes being explored is: when is it okay to lie? Can a lie be beneficial?

In the first scene, if you remember, the protagonist is sitting in his comfy lounge chair, watching TV, and he asks his wife to bring him a piece of pie. She tells him to get up and get it himself.

His excuse for not getting up is that he has to watch the lotto. He pretends he’s got the winning numbers as an excuse to stay in his chair. So his wife brings him a piece of pie. It works. It’s a harmless white lie. This introduces the thematic question, gets us ready for the BIG lie to come.

In one of her AFF seminars, Robin Swicord said that “every scene should be a microcosm of the theme.” Tracking that is fun for me. (But then, I was the kid whose big thrill was going to the library.) [laughs]

Scott: These journal‑writing things you talk about ‑‑ that’s dialogue. That dialogue is an expression of a character. Is it fair to say that after theme ‑‑ that you pretty quickly move into character?

Karen: Once I have a basic concept in mind, character becomes important, and I’m always looking for ways that plot can shape or reveal character — to force a revelation of strength or weakness.

Scott: What about writing a scene? Do you have goals when you’re sitting down to write a scene?

Karen: I always want conflict and/or forward momentum. But I try not to force a clash between characters — just for the sake of it. I’ve read a lot of scenes where it feels like, “Oh, somebody told you that characters always have to be arguing.”

Some sort of change or revelation should occur within a scene, I think. And I think of each scene as a mini‑movie within itself.

Scott: Beginning, middle, end.

Karen: Beginning, middle, and end within every scene.

Scott: One thing I was struck with in your writing, and maybe it’s because you’re a poet is…I tell my students ‑‑ I say, “You should think about scene description less as prose and more as poetry. Visual writing, strong, active verbs, vivid descriptors, we don’t even need you to write complete sentences depending on what your narrative voice is.”

I was struck because your script is quite lyrical and lovely in a screenwriterly way, just looking at the screen description. There’s a moment where Dahlia in your script, this blunt statement. “She’s in a cage ‑‑ a cage filled with children.”

I just thought, “God, the effect of that, given the lyricism of your writing ‑‑ it was like a sledgehammer.” Was that intentional on your part, do you think?

Karen: Very intentional. [laughs] A lot of writers I know write to music, but it doesn’t work for me because I’m always very aware of the rhythm of the words.

I want the rhythm to match the subject matter of the scene. The rhythm of a fight scene will be different than the rhythm of a grief scene. But I always want lyricism to add a layer of interest, to make the reader’s job less tedious.

Scott: That’s the dirty little secret of Hollywood, is that most of the script, depending upon the type of script it is, is scene descriptions, but people who work in development basically hate scene description, because they’ll scan through the dialogue. They’ll just skip the scenery.

You have to work really hard to make that stuff entertaining.

Karen: To make it worth reading, yeah. I don’t write a lot of description, because I know I skip it, myself. Who said, “Don’t write the parts nobody reads”? Somebody. [laughs]

Scott: Before I get to the last question, given the fact that you’re a poet, who are some of your favorite poets?

Karen: Billy Collins, Wanda Coleman, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Juan Felipe Herrera, Miguel Hernandez, Sharon Olds, Lucille Clifton.

Scott: The reason I ask… I just love reading it, and there’s something about it spotlighting, oftentimes, a moment.

Karen: Yes. It gets to the heart of things.

Scott: Yeah. That’s another reason why I think that screenwriting, particularly because we’re writing in the present tense, that there’s more applicability with being a poet and screenwriting than perhaps anything else.

Karen: I always say this. If you want to be a better screenwriter, read and write poetry. Poetry is about economy of words, using the most appropriate, powerful words — which is what screenwriting is about.

Scott: Last question, which I’m sure you’ll be asked now as you move forward, which is the one that inevitably any person who’s actually worked in the business as a screenwriter gets asked ‑‑ what advice can you offer to aspiring screenwriters about learning the craft and breaking into Hollywood?

Karen: Besides “Read and write poetry?” Think about theme. Think about what you want going on underneath.

I’m hell to go to the movies with. I really am. That’s why I usually go alone. I dread walking out with people and having to talk about the literal stuff, the stuff that happened. “Yup, that car sure did crash.” If something isn’t going on other than the literal, I’m bored. I want to be able to trace themes, symbols, motifs. So I try to give readers/potential viewers those kinds of opportunities in my scripts.

Scott: The advice would be, look for the emotional subtexts…?

Karen: Yes. Look for what you can do thematically. Ways to symbolize the emotional journey. Opportunities to incorporate symbols and visual motifs.

Scott: Yeah, I talk about in my classes and in the blog this idea of talismans, where there’s a physical object with a symbolic, emotional, or psychological meaning. Of course, that idea of a picture’s worth a thousand words. Why not?

Karen: Yes. Whether you call them talismans or visual motifs or metaphors… Why not use them?

For Part 1, go here.

Part 2, here.

Part 3, here.

Part 4, here.

Part 5, here.

Karen is repped by APA.

For my interviews with every Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting winner since 2012, go here.

For my interviews with 53 Black List writers, go here.